Ian, I tried to stay out of this OT thread but I could not resist it once the question of belief arose.
On 28 February 2010 15:54, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Noonie - You make what I believe are good points – and I agree with them > in part (the bit about the Carboniferous is a bit wide of the mark, but I > get your general thrust). > I've encountered these graphs, and general sentiments, on several sites. Not knowing who's-who in the xGW debate I took it on face value. <http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html> It appears that this group is skeptical of current trends and therefore could be accused of having an agenda :-P > There’s a problem with the non-scientist general public in that they tend > to believe that consensus = truth (consensus: the supposed 3,000 scientists > who supposedly wrote the IPCC top-level reports). Or is it the media that > insists on pushing that simplistic line? > Yes the "10,000,000 blowflies" theory of diet ;-) > Of course, progress in science depends absolutely on dissent – but not on > irrationality and emotionalism or consensus to “prove a point”. > Precisely my point. Without vigorous debate amongst those who "know" the rest of us are just flapping our gums. I do get very cross with those who make claims about their data but who refuse to share that data so that the claims may be verified (or not). > I watched the second of a series of 2 programs on SBS yesterday, called > “Absolute Zero” (ie, theoretical 0o Kelvin, and pursuit of very low > temperatures in the laboratory). While unrelated to GW/climate change > debates, the program illustrated well the competitiveness and even the clash > of personalities, etc of leading scientists of 300 years ago to the present > – ie, they’re generally human - and also the cooperative and generous spirit > of many. The practical side-effects of these endeavours are huge, in our > current technological age – including quantum computing. > > Scientific endeavour depends on dissent and pursuit of facts (and results) > to back up theories or hypotheses. > > I over-educated in geology, chemistry and physics which has given me an > appreciation of that aspect of science and the scientific method. Geology is > an interesting discipline, in that it encourages a lot of vague arm-waving > and hypothesizing – because of the vastness of the time-scales involved, and > some difficulty in finding unambiguous evidence to support or refute. In > itself, that’s a useful experience and vantage-point to critique the global > warming / climate change fiasco as it’s playing out. > I imagine the current state of global climate science to be similar to the early days of modern physics. I just hope that there's no equivalent of quantum mechanics in the climate sciences. If there is then the rest of use will never understand it. > Unfortunately, the intent of my post a week ago has been lost in > extraneous flak. I thought the email would survive until Monday night; it’s > occupied too much bandwidth. > I have actually enjoyed reading this thread. But I'm easily amused. -- noonie > ------------------------------ > > Ian Thomas > Victoria Park, Western Australia > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *noonie > *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:03 AM > > *To:* ausDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles > needed > > > > Greetings, > > On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe > in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with > your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in > climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered > right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by > Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium > fortune? > > > > But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are > going to agree with. It's human nature. > > > > Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along > with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your > lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is > acceptably close to the truth. > > > > You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. > You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It > should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac > Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. > > > > I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do > wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the > following:- > > > > 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get > used to it. > > > > 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down in the Carboniferous > period, back into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea. (Although I > have red that global temperatures during this period were very, very low in > spite of the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). > > > > 3. Greenland was inhabited and farmed before, and probably will be again. > > > > 4. The Northwest passage was safe for shipping before, and probably will be > again. > > > > -- > > noonie > > > > > > > > Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might > be coming up if we don’t be careful? > > > > T. > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Connors > > *Sent:* Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM > > > *To:* ausDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles > needed > > > > On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne > Water graph – > > “*What does this graph show?* > Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups > and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost > 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which > the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario > in 2050.” > > …included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could > occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. > > So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than > CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public > that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be > justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my > nose. > > I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the > explanation (not the CSIRO), but it’s typical of inflammatory exaggerated > accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. > > The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly > excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that > in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray > River being bone dry in 1914. > > > > I'm probably cherry picking facts though. > >
